M
mattp0625
Guest
Apocrypha is a separation. We can use semantics about intent and say it is inclusion, yet we still see his mindset made fairly clear in post number 38.
Either way, there’s no authority there to do any of the above.
Some Catholics accept justification(initial ) by faith alone per
- Status
Either way, there’s no authority there to do any of the above.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I think sometimes Catholics use “authority” as a side door to not talk about the issues, just like protestants sometimes ignore authority in the same way.
For Luther and for Lutherans and others, it wasn’t a matter of semantics, inclusion or exclusion. It was and is a matter of viewing the disputed books (disputed prior to the Reformation era) with respect for the early Church. Luther, in the start of his preface says,
** Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. **
Recognizing that some in the Church disputed James, for example, isn’t cause to “throw it out”, and therefore he didn’t. But he shares his opinion about the authorship, and why he believes it.
He finishes by saying:
** In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. **
Two things:
- Luther here defends the doctrine of works, as James states it - faith without works is dead. That is typically glossed over.
- He recognizes that, why he doesn’t count as one of his, many consider James to be a chief book.
The “separation” you speak of is more of a distinction between books that are and continue to be scripture, and if they are read at mass, included in instruction, etc., then they indeed can be called canon.
Jon
M
mattp0625
Guest
He just “mangles the Scriptures”, too…
I’m not certain what help that is. It comes off as an ad hominem attack.
Jon
M
mattp0625
Guest
No attack, just quoting Luther on James.
Example
M
mattp0625
Guest
See post number 38.
Not sure how that “mangles” James. He states his opinion. I don’t happen to agree with him, and I think he here overreacts to what he sees as the Catholic Church of his time overemphasizing works. But I don’t see it as mangling at all. There were others who questioned the authorship. That’s not mangling either.
M
mattp0625
Guest
Read it again. He said James mangles the scriptures and opposes Paul.
Matt,
Yes, and I said I disagree with him on the point. He also only uses this preface once, in his 1522 NT translation. I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Luther sees James as contradicting the whole of scripture, particularly Paul, when he speaks of justification through works. Paul never speaks of works in that way.
Jon
M
mattp0625
Guest
OK… Now read the last sentence.
“I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books”
Luther was trying to keep James out based on Luther’s own doctrine.
He was deeming James as unacceptable because he didn’t line up with his own views on justification and his own interpretation of Paul.
Therefore, based on that, it couldn’t possibly be of apostolic origin - according to him.
He’s talking about his own personal view - his “chief books”. He wasn’t trying to keep it out of the Bible. If that was his goal, all he had to do was not translate it and include it. Don’t read more than what’s here. At the end, he lets you know this is his personal opinion. The partial quote you have here finishes with,** “… though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”**
Luther is giving a personal opinion. I disagree with his opinion, but not his right to have one.
Jon
M
mattp0625
Guest
The other Protestants opposed him, so he backed down.
The words are clearly there.
“I will not have him in my bible.”
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Well Robert Sungenis for one and that was when he was in the good graces of Catholic. And if you know Mr Sungenis it is fond of quoting Trent and other sources.
Well it seems even Dave in that article was not making the case that this is a standard Catholic view, but instead he was making the case that it could be used with the correct qualifiers.
I don’t know if Sungenis meets the criteria of “well-informed, theologically educated” but he is one. Also if you read any Catholic vs Protestant debate on justification you never hear the Catholics claim initial justification is by faith alone, even in the examples from Scripture where it clearly is by faith alone. Instead they resort to some form of explanation where faith itself is a work or hearing or breathing or the person was not dead so they were doing something. If that tactic is not used they resort to some type of defense that “faith alone” is not mentioned.
I will have to check my copy of the debate where Patrick Madrid, Robert Sungenis, and William Marshner presented the Catholic position to see if they affirmed it. I don’t think they did, but it has been a while since I listened to it.
B
Bookcat
Guest
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
No, I had not. Will read them now.
B
Bookcat
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, you’ve shown me that my initial statement was too strong. I stand by the revised version, though. Sungenis has pretty uniformly bad judgment and is a marginal figure these days (thank goodness).
He’s arguing that the language could be used, because Trent clearly affirms that the first grace cannot be earned. Chapter 8 of the Decree on Justification seems pretty clear to me: "But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46]"
Not in my book
Because they understand the debate to be about whether anything other than faith has any causal role in justification at any point. And these are all valid arguments.
But as Trent says, faith is the beginning. Nothing that precedes faith (and indeed not faith itself) can merit God’s grace. But once God’s grace is infused into the believer, it transforms the will so that our actions are done by God in us and “merit” further grace, in the sense that they make us the kind of people in whom God’s Spirit can increasingly dwell. (I don’t like the word “merit” myself, but coming from a Wesleyan background, when I actually read Trent carefully and came to understand the historical background of the language I realized that there wasn’t much of a divide between what I had been brought up to believe and what the Church taught.)
Edwin
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Wow!! The first two paragraphs of that first link was so moving and written so beautiful!! All I could say was Amen and Amen!! This is pretty encouraging from my perspective and also so surprising, because very seldom do I hear Catholics say anything close to this.
Edwin and I are having a similar discussion, but this seems to even be closer to what Protestants believe. Maybe we would diverge a bit more if he started talking about the eschaton judgment?
- Status